High capacity magazines

[gollygee]

That's the problem.

So my husband and I were hanging out at a bar/restaurant in our small area of Michigan (very small village, very very Republican, almost everyone owns a gun), and were talking to people we know about this whole gun issue.

Every single person there said they thought it was time to ban - not guns- but high capacity magazines.

Maybe it's time to do that much. I was surprised that a bunch of gun-owning Republicans think so, and volunteered that they felt that way.

What they said is that the problem isn't the gun so much as how many people can be shot in a small amount of time. I keep hearing about people carrying handguns to protect themselves. Someone with a handgun and a permit to carry it would have a chance if someone went on a killing spree with a gun they had to reload every so often.

(And I'm sorry for starting another gun thread.)

[virginia mountainman]

1. People don't seem to realize that........

With a bit of practice, magazines can be changed in less than one second.

A handgun...

A AR 15

A some practice, magazines can be swapped almost as fast as an aimed shot itself.

That fact along, makes mag capacity moot.

[gollygee]

3. Just a bit of practice?

If they're posting videos showing off that they can do that, it can't be the norm. It must be something unusual. What percentage of people who go off on these rampages would have that level of ability? And they'd still be limited by how many they can carry close enough to have easy and fast access to.

[loli phabay]

9. mountainman is right, changing a mag is not hard or time consuming

in fact carrying 10 thirty round mags is better than 1 hundred as if you get a mag stoppage you just drop the one in the weapon and do a reload, with the hundred round one you are gonna lose a lot more rounds.

[virginia mountainman]

12. It is easy, essentially the same as learning how to drive a manual transmission well..

In the case of the Glock, you can try this yourself, how hard is it to bring your two hands together, like you was changing a magazine...Not very hard, even in the dark..(this is actually a design feature,and why you don't see many handguns with the magazine NOT in the grip anymore)

It is muscle memory, and in your brain, it is the same function as "gas off, clutch in, gear shift to next gear, gas in easy, and clutch out....

With the Glock it is.... with gun in right hand, Release empty magazine with thumb, left hand get spare mag, insert spare magazine in magazine well, release slide.

With a bit of practice, just like learning a stick shift, it becomes easy, and second nature.

I understand that you may not shoot, but to people that do, and take it seriously, it is an important skill to master.

[loli phabay]

18. if you dont even empty the first mag you dont even have to operate the slide

just drop the mag as you bring another in and continue firing.

[virginia mountainman]

22. very correct...nt

[spin]

54. It doesn't require a lot of practice or unusual coordination to swap magazines quickly ...

It's really quite easy.

[-..__...]

13. Not bad...

but this is crazy-blink-of-an-eye-WTF-how-did-he-do-that-shit-must-be-CGI kind of performance

...

[AlinPA]

16. I'm missing something: why do you have to change magazines that fast?

[morningfog]

19. For mass murdering.

[slampoet]

26. +1 exactly.

most any other case you would be using cover to reload.

[Marinedem]

37. Wow.

What a fucking pile of ignorant horse-hit.

Google IDPA or three gun if you don't want to live in your hateful world of ignorance.

You won't though.

[morningfog]

43. Thanks for responding so that I can put you directly on ignore!

Bye!

[morningfog]

70. Gladly!

No more gun nuts on DU. Not for me anyway.

I wish somebody would round up all these displaced gungeon refugees and return them home.

[Mosby]

71. I want to make sure I understand you

You think that everyone in the US should be able to buy high capacity magazines without restrictions or regulations so a few gun enthusiasts can play shooting games at ranges?

That about sums it up right?

[loli phabay]

20. why not, if you can do it and anybody pretty much can then why not

you never know when you may have to do a mag cjhange, you might have an issue with the first round you go to fire and want to change mags.

[sarisataka]

23. Several groups find fast changes important

Police and military will usually change magazines if there is a malfunction that does not easily clear. If the magazine is at fault, as is often the case, it will immediately correct the problem.

Competitive shooters are likely the people who can change magazines the fastest. Since every fraction of a second counts they will practice the skill extensively.

For the average civilian, bragging rights is about the only reason. A civilian in a self defense situation will shoot off all of the ammunition so rarely that it is nearly a non-issue. If someone is out plinking, targets and cans done shoot back so you can take your time reloading.

[Sirveri]

35. I was taught to switch to my sidearm if I needed the extra split second.

If you can take a breather or are at long range then a reload is fine. If you desperately need to keep pouring ammo downrange then you're going to want to drop your primary and start shooting off the hip with your sidearm as you bring it to the ready. It's arguably faster than realizing you're out, reaching down to your belt as you drop the empty magazine then making sure you find the hole, slam home and release the slide.

Thankfully they never put me in a position where I'd need to do that though.

[sarisataka]

42. You learned well soldier

If your primary fails in a CQB situation, go to your secondary and find cover.

Unless you don't have a secondary. Then you are having a really bad day

Stay safe

[-..__...]

24. Same reason one has to jump that high, run that fast...

eat as many hot dogs as you can in 20 minutes.

Bragging rights, can you top this, I can do it better than you, etc.

Nothing wrong with that... just good'ol American completion.

[michreject]

65. IDPA, IPSC and USPSA shooting

Speed, power and accuracy.

[Kaleva]

47. This guy is more of a danger to himself then to anyone else.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. For Democratic candidates, it is a losing wedge issue that will help Republicans.

[virginia mountainman]

27. Yes it is..

And some people forget that it is a election year....

[soccer1]

67. I agree

My husband and I were just discussing this......for Obama or any Dem to way in too heavily on gun control issues so close to an election is just not smart. Unfortunate, but true.

[proud patriot]

4. While debating a right winger today on facebook

I thought perhaps I might find common ground using the 100 round barrel clip. his response to me was thus
"how many times do want to reload when defending your family" to which I responded "you must think the zombie Apocalypse is coming"

There is zero common ground with the zealots. they skip over reading the second amendment in the NRA I guess.

[gollygee]

5. Yeah, I think if someone breaks into your house

You might have to fire off two shots before you get them or they run off, but 100 seems like a stretch. How many people would try to break into one house?

[sadbear]

7. There are a lot of innocent bystander when you sqeeze off 100 rounds.

[loli phabay]

10. depends where you live, i could fire a 150mm at you, miss and still probuablt not hit anyone else if

you were coming in my door.

[Edweird]

6. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with 10 and 15 round magazines.

[gollygee]

11. Yes it obviously wouldn't prevent every tragedy

I was more thinking about the argument that if people were allowed to carry concealed weapons more freely, that they could stop these things from happening. If someone did have a concealed weapon there, they'd have a better chance if the shooter had to pause to reload. It seems like (if I remember right) people couldn't carry concealed weapons either in this movie theater or on that campus, so it might not have helped in this case either.

[Edweird]

14. Yep, the 'gun free zone' saved the day huh? I guess shooter didn't get that memo.

Or he knew that law abiding gun owners would be disarmed in there and he would have no armed resistance whatsoever.

[Kolesar]

76. Gun pusher making fun of rules of the property owner

It's another day on DU!

[Edweird]

78. "Gun pusher"? Typical gun grabber dishonesty.

Oh but if it saved one life it would be worth it, right? Well it did. It saved the shooter's life. A 'gun free zone' insured that he would not be in any danger himself and could do as he saw fit to do. It's a gun control success! Don't be modest. Take a bow!

[virginia mountainman]

15. I am a CCW holder..And I do carry..

The Theater, was a posted "No Gun" zone... ALL, the CCW folks I know would have avoided it because of that fact alone...

I would also like to point out if I, with my sidearm was inside at the time of the shooting, I honestly don't know if I could have helped or not..

A few facts about the situation.

It was a dark theater...

It was packed...

Their was tear gas released...

People are known to dress up and pull foolish stupid pranks...

100's of people where panicking.

I may not have even DRAWN my weapon, because I would not want to misidentified as "the shooter" For me to have drawn my sidearm. I would have needed to be relativity close, and "100% CERTAIN" of my target, and that he was an active shooter. And even if those criteria where met. I would not draw, unless he was looking away, or momentary distracted a bit.

But if he was relativity close, and clearly identified as the shooter, and I had a chance to draw, my sidearm would have come out and I would have fired without ANY WARNING whatsoever. You do not warn people with guns in their hands, your shoot them to stop the bloodshed as quickly as possible.

It's not a hero thing, it's a "I cherish my life, and I want to survive, and come home to my beloved wife and kids" thing.

[littlewolf]

77. Rog that Virginia Mountain man

that would have been a tight shot ... glad I didn't have to take it ...
with him wearing a tactical vest vice body armor it would have made
it a tad easier ... but you have to worry about what is behind the shooter
I really hate doing active shooter training ... my heart is always in my
mouth .... and it is just training ...
I keep thinking of Columbine ....

[permatex]

8. Do you seriously think criminals are going to abide by a ban?

Why should criminals have them and the honest citizen not?

[soccer1]

29. Kind of like the nuclear arms race strategy of the Cold War

MAD...Mutually Assured Destruction. My bomb is bigger than your bomb and I have more of them, too.

[Chorophyll]

40. It works pretty well in other developed nations.

Stuff happens, but nowhere near as much as here.

[jeff47]

52. It's managed to keep fully automatic weapons out of spree killer's hands

What makes you think it would fail when licensing for full-auto seems to be rather successful?

[permatex]

62. You think a criminal couldn't get a select fire weapon?

You really think that criminals couldn't get hi cap mags.
Anyone with any basic knowledge could make one.
How are you going to stop smuggling across the border.
What about the millions and millions already out there?
Bans don't work, as evidenced by the drug war, the prohibition of alcohol.
All thats going to happen is the usual congresscritters will introduce useless legislation knowing full well that it's going nowhere. Not even Pres. Obama is proposing new legislation, what does that tell you?
Strong pro 2A Harry Reid, who is my Senator, won't let any new gun legislation come up for a vote, the House is controlled by the R's, how do you get it past the House, Even Nancy Pelosi is against new gun control laws.

Given all that, what do you think the chances are of new laws?

[jeff47]

69. You think I'm that stupid?

How unsurprising.

What I'm doing is looking at the recent history of spree killers, and counting the number that used an automatic weapon.

The answer is 0.

So, if the licensing scheme is so utterly useless, and automatic weapons are so easy to obtain, how come none of these guys used one?

Given all that, what do you think the chances are of new laws?

Right now? None. But that's because it's an election year. "Angry black man is taking away your guns" is already a right-wing theme in this election. It would be politically unwise to do anything that backs up that bullshit right now.

But the election's done in November.

[virginia mountainman]

17. One more thing to consider!

These 100 rnd magazines, like he had, are notoriously unreliable, and fickle.... It actually jammed his rifle, and caused him to switch to a much less deadly handgun.

In a way, it may have been a good thing, that he chose to depend on a unreliable 100 rnd magazine, instead of learning how to reload, and use normal capacity reliable magazines, like in the videos.

The military don't even use that crap.

[Travis_0004]

28. Loughner's magazine also jammed

You are correct that they can be very unreliable.

[HooptieWagon]

33. You're right about the jamming.

The shooter had only recently purchased the weapon, its possible he didn't know... or if he did know, it didn't matter because it was part of his "super-villian" costume. I kind of suspect the latter... certainly the body armor restricted is movement, and the helmet restricted his vision. I think he was playing a role, and dressed the part.

[virginia mountainman]

34. Hooptie, i think you hit the nail on the head..

I think your right, he did not care, he was "dressing the part" and a "super villain" would use the big scary magazine, because they always work great in the movies, and it is something a proper "super villain" would use.

[MrSlayer]

21. There are millions out there already.

What do we do about them? People aren't going to just hand them in.

[justanidea]

38. This

This is the major reason a total ban of them would be ineffective.

[Kaleva]

41. They probably would if there was a stiff penalty for having them in one's possession.

I wouldn't want to risk jail time and/or a hefty fine for having something one doesn't need for self defense as shown by others here in this thread by posting the youtube videos.

I've been searching off and on for the past few days for an example of a citizen who drew his or her gun in self defense but ended up getting killed or injured because they ran out of ammo. There may be some but I haven't found any yet myself.

[permatex]

64. Which ever party

tried to ban them would be banned it the next election.

[Kaleva]

74. I don't think so

There's alot of hunters in Michigan and the 5 round magazine limit for rifles and shotguns and the three round limit on shotguns for hunting migratory game birds has been around for decades so people are used to that. Placing a limit on magazine capacity will have no effect on them.

Now banning certain guns would be another matter entirely. For those hunters on a tight budget, the semi-automatic SKS is a good choice. The 7.62x39mm round is about the same as the tried and true .30-30 round. Put a 30 round mag on that SKS and one has what many would call an assault weapon. Put a 5 round mag on it and one has a legal hunting gun. Same goes for the much more pricey .308 caliber AR-15/AR-10.

[AndyTiedye]

25. Nah, Allow Them, But Only Cheap Crappy Ones from China

The Aurora shooter's drum magazine jammed on him. So did the Arizona shooter's extended clip.
We should encourage more of that Chinese quality control in this area.
Maybe we can get magazines that jam on the first shot.

[rl6214]

53. This. I only buy American made magazines. Quality control on the others just sucks.

[doc03]

30. I am a gun owner and I don't believe there is any logical reason for any civilian to have a

gun loaded with more than five rounds. The reasoning that someone could carry 30 round magazines and switch them out a fast as someone that has a 100 magazine is stupid. Why would you ever need even a 30 round magazine in the first place unless you were a mass murderer? I have talked to several people the last couple days and even some NRA members agree about the magazines. I have a CCW permit and have only carried about 5 times the first week or two I got it. I have lived 64 years and never once have I even remotely had a use for a CCW. Most NRA members are hunters or target shoot, it's just a loony fringe that get off on having military style weapons with high capacity magazines. But the loony fringe runs the NRA.

[Tejas]

31. Here's a picture of logical reason why cops don't need guns.

Well, okay, several logical reasons.

[aikoaiko]

36. Is it ok to call you a Fudd since you think people with mags > 5 rounds are "loony fringe"?

I have to admit there is are numbers that I could live with in terms of mag capacity, but all limits are arbitrary. One more round doesn't make a mag that much more dangerous.

If banners wanted support from people like me, they should recommend pistol limits that are dependent on the mag not extending far below the grip and long gun limits of 30 which is standard issue in professional self-defense use. Even then I can't say that 31 rounds is someone evil.

[Kaleva]

44. And having one less round doesn't make one less safe.

I've mentioned the below to you before but I'll post it again so others may read it.

From the 1999 Firearms Fact Sheet

"* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker."

http://gunowners.org/fs9901.htm

In the below where a NYPD study was discussed, it was found that officers fire an average of 8 shots in an encounter.

"The new "average" number of rounds fired is eight. Subsequent data may alter that number, but that is what we have now. What jumps out at me is that, after eight rounds are fired, the parties separate or accommodate to the point where additional shooting is not necessary, at least in the short term, even though the officer is fully capable of firing more rounds. NYPD shooting accuracy has improved steadily, but the average hit percentage is still below twenty, so, out of eight rounds fired, only one or two are likely to impact anywhere on the suspect. In most cases, hit or not, the suspect disengages and runs away. "

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2000/20Dec00.html

Your comment:

"If banners wanted support from people like me, they should recommend pistol limits that are dependent on the mag not extending far below the grip..."

I think that's an excellent idea. It's simple and would be easily understood by all. If one wants higher capacity, then buy a handgun whose standard magazine holds more rounds or just have more magazines.

As for rifles, it's my opinion they aren't that good for self defense. Most encounters take place at close quarters so the range of the rifle or carbine isn't needed. They are also large and impractical to have on hand at all times. They'd make a good back up for an all out home invasion but there I'd prefer a shotgun and do a New York reload with a handgun if I didn't have time to reload the shotgun.

[aikoaiko]

45. I wonder if its possible to get the standard deviation on that average.

Assuming a normal curve, setting the mag limit at 8 would have left half the police shooters with unloaded guns in a shootout (until they reloaded).

I could see an argument made for 2.5 standard deviations above an empirically derived average.

[Kaleva]

46. I think there should be much greater research done on civilian uses of guns in self defense

While the data on police encounters is interesting, it's an entirely different ball game as LEOs routinely place themselves in situations that could be dangerous and their job is to pursue and apprehend the bad guy and not just make them retreat.

[aikoaiko]

48. True, but non-leo civilians need to defend selves/others from the same armed criminals.

In general, I think that civilian law enforcement officers and non-LEO civilians should have access to the same tools for self-defense. They both interact with same dangerous criminals -- the police more often though.

[Kaleva]

49. But LEO and civilians interact with the same criminals differently.

Thus the needs are not the same.

[aikoaiko]

51. Not the same interactions, I agree, but the same threat is there, IMO

Its possible the same threat exists to the homeowner who confronts an armed criminal in his home as the police officer who confronts a criminal inside someone's home.

More over civilians are victimized by predators in ways that police generally are not (i.e., home invasions).

Again, I agree that the interactions are different in quantity and quality, but ultimately both groups are exposed to the same dangerous criminals and have similar needs in firearms.

[jeff47]

59. Yes, for example that study you cited has some issues

The 2.5M comes from a telephone survey. The criteria for a positive response was that the person felt they prevented an attack - they didn't have to identify any actual potential assailants. So you get things like the one woman claiming she thwarts 52 attacks per year.

While there are very high-crime areas of the country, none of them are crime ridden enough to support "thwart one attack per week". But to say "yes", all she had to feel was that someone was gonna get her if she wasn't carrying - and that someone could be invisible boogeymen hiding in the shadows across the street.

Stats generated when the person taking the survey has to identify a specific assailant they thwarted end up with results more like 100k/year. Even then, we can't know how many were actually thwarted by the gun, and would not have backed down anyway.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to design an effective study to figure out just how much guns "help". Leading to bad numbers cherry picked to support whichever side of the debate.

[Kaleva]

72. Better data could lead to better laws and regulations

Or at least better info for those who are very interested in self and/or home defense to research.

[jeff47]

73. Yes, but it's really hard to get any objective data

It's inherently subjective - "I'm sure that big angry guy would have mugged me if I didn't flash my gun". Might have been the guy was just pissed off after a long day of work and wasn't gonna do anything.

[Kaleva]

75. It's not entirely subjective

One either drew their gun or they didn't. Pointing and presenting a firearm without reasonable cause can get one in deep legal trouble. I imagine a great majority of those who either pointed a gun at another or brandished it with reasonable cause reported the incident to the police as soon as possible. And those who had a gun pointed at them or were threatened by the presence of a gun without cause most likely called the police too.

[MicaelS]

39. As a non-hunting gun owner...

I personally don’t give a damn about hunting. I have never hunted, and don’t want to. I’m not opposed to it philosophically, but the attitude of some hunters, as expressed by you, if the thing I really don’t like.

Your statement reads as you’re one of those who think the “real” purpose of gun ownership is hunting. In other words, you are a “Fudd”, as in “Elmer Fudd”.

Fudds are perfectly willing to give up every other type gun, as long as they can keep their precious hunting guns, and keep hunting.

I on the other hand, think the prime purpose of the RKBA is self and home defense.

If everything but hunting guns were banned, then the PETA Zealots would soon try to get hunting banned, and as soon as hunting was banned, then there would be no “need” for anyone to own a gun, and that would be the end of the RKBA.

If your attitude is no one “needs” to own a handgun or semi-auto, then IMO, no one except the Native People in Alaska, who are subsistence hunters, or the very poor in rural areas, “needs” to hunt.

[flvegan]

32. Sorry, but laughable.

For the record, I can't think of a good reason for a 100 round mag for an AR-15 in private ownership.

But, in looking back at the incident, he carried a shotgun didn't he? In those spaces...if it's how many people can be shot in a small amount of time, then spray 'n pray should go the way of the dingo.

[rl6214]

50. If he didn't have the hi cap magazine, he would have killed more, his gun jammed

because of the hi cap mag. Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded 17 using standard, 10 round mags. He got off 170 shots reloading 17 times. That's about 100 more shots than Holmes got off.

[jeff47]

57. The VT shooter was also shooting for much, much, much, much

much, much, much, much longer.

So your plan is we should allow 100 round mags, but rig them so that they jam the weapon?

[rl6214]

60. "So your plan is we should allow 100 round mags, but rig them so that they jam the weapon"

I'm sure you'll point out where I said anything like that.

[jeff47]

61. It's the title of your own post.

If he didn't have the hi cap magazine, he would have killed more, his gun jammed

[rl6214]

66. You need a little help with your reading comprehension

""So your plan is we should allow 100 round mags, but rig them so that they jam the weapon""

This statement is no where close to:

"If he didn't have the hi cap magazine, he would have killed more, his gun jammed"

This statement.

IF you knew anything about high cap mags, you would know that they are Very prone to jamming.

[dmallind]

55. Probably could. Wouldn't do much though

Fast reloads, reliabilty, std cap range, ubiquity already covered, but to be honest the inconvenience to sport/recreational gun users would be minimal. Most I have come across are not fans of the gaudy super hi-caps anyway like 30rd Glocks and 100rd drums - too unreliable.

BTW the highest std mag 9mm capacity I can recall offhand is 19 in the std Beretta full size. Yep that's enough I certainly agree. Restricting magazines to std cap is one thing. Previous bans went a bit beyond that in limiting to 10 even if most double-stack 9mm guns were designed to hold more.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

56. Capacity is nearly irrelevant.

Based on shooting competitions I've been to, I'd guess the average practiced shooter can fire 2-4 "aimed" rounds per second from a regular rifle or pistol (depending on the recoil and caliber). The typical practiced shooter can change mags in 2-3 seconds.

So a typical 30-round magazine would take about 10 seconds to shoot/spray into a target(s) for the average shooter. Being forced to use three 10-round magazines (30 rounds total) would take only about 7 more seconds to shoot. And then there's the simple workaround that a shooter could simply carry two guns (like Cho did at VT with his 10-round magazines).

The effect of such a law would be minimal. Especially if you realize that there are literally probably well over a billion "high capacity" magazines on the market. I think expending LOTS of political capital on a law that would have little effect is an egregious waste of seats in congress - such a move would cost many pols their seats.

And then there is an unintended consequence of this rationale of law-making...
If people are forced to use reduced capacity magazines, they may end up using more powerful (deadly) calibers. A 9mm pistol that holds 19 rounds makes alot more sense to carry over an equally sized .45 caliber pistol that only holds 13 rounds. Mandade that magazines can only be 10 rounds or less, and the much more lethal .45 caliber pistol becomes the clear consumer choice.

[PoliticAverse]

58. "but high capacity magazines."

Do they all agree as to what constitutes 'high capacity' ?

And what do they propose to do with the magazines already out there ?

[loyalsister]

68. I'm so glad to know that someone had a constructive conversation!

n\t